Many Australians might “be happy with one vote, one value to the party of their choice”. However, the Constitution is quite clear. Section 7says, “The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.” In other words, we retain the right to vote for individuals, and the single transferable vote system used is designed to uphold this right. We can graft a simple above-the-line party system onto the vote for individuals, but we cannot remove the right to vote for individuals.

There are websites, like senate.io, that help voters cast a formal vote below the line. The AEC ought to provide an official app to do the same.

The alternative of “where preferential voting is optional – vote for your preferred candidate or fill in all the squares, simple as that” also has a problem. The problem is that the proportional nature of the system depends on preference flowing through to get candidates to the quota required for election. We do not need all preferences to be filled in, but we do need more than one. That number should be the same for all elections, including double dissolutions. I think 20 is a good choice. If you can’t count to 20, perhaps you shouldn’t be voting at all. Putting numbers above 20 would remain allowed, but not compulsory. I would keep the above-the-line votes, but they would be restricted to 20 preferences. The advantage of this is that many of the temporary parties formed as preference feeders for other parties would find it damaging to their cause because their preferences would exhaust after 20. There would be an incentive for like-minded people to form one party, not three.

I have proposed my scheme in letters to the editor of The Age, but they don’t get published.

An interesting article. Pref deals do make strange bed fellows. The Stable Population Party allocated prefs to One Nation over the Greens - further evidence that the latter has no environmental credentials at all and that it is an anti-immigration party.

I saw Katter pref other parties above Xenophon, which is unusual as Senator X and the Kat were mates up until 18 months ago. They did a buy Australian tour together. 18 months is a long time in politics though.

Come back Pauline all is forgiven.

With tens of thousands of Economic Invaders I welcome her to do something.

The problem is getting worse not better as Rudd would have us believe.

Below the line Senate voting is doing my head in: has anyone actually looked at the Senate Group Voting tickets? Some of them alternately preference one candidate at a time from their favoured fellow parties, despite this having really unpredictable outcome, according to Anthony Green. So these parties apparently don't even understand the deals they are making. We urgently need to reform the system. Perhaps if we get some absolute nutters elected this time there will be impetus for change. The only light on the horizon is that if I make an error of repetition or omission at say, number 20, preferences stop flowing. Also - which surprised me, but check it out on Anthony Greens election blog - we can use an above the line vote as a backstop in case the below the line one ends up invalid.

with all Pauline's weaknesses she has to be 100% better than the Greens. At least she is not reponsible for thousands of drownings like Greens/Labour.

Amazing...Three out of five posters above, (including myself), are sympathetic towards Pauline Hanson...

I agree, the current system is an invitaiton to cynical manipulation and does not reflect voters' real preferences. As it suits the major parties as well as the fringe element, though, i doubt we'll see reform any time soon.

Chris C
I like your suggestion - it seems a good compromise allowing those who can't be bothered to work out their own preferences to stick to the party line, while those of us voting below the line don't need to label 60+ boxes and allocate preferences between equally loathed candidates.

"Green and Joyce are right. The present system of preferential voting has been stretched to ridiculous limits and in future it should be changed."

I suspect a lot of Australians would agree. The catch is: what system will take its place. In my view (and that of most European countries) is that a form of proportional representation results in a parliament that actually reflects the voting preferences of the voters.

For some reason the Australian mindset is incapable of seriously addressing this issue.

The article is intended to illustrate the incongruity of mis-matched shady preference deals, not necessarily to slag Pauline. It was expert political analyst Anthony Green who insisted a vote for the Sex Party should not mean a vote for Pauline Hanson or One Nation. Neither should a vote for Katter or Palmer end up with the Greens or Labor against the political leanings of most of their supporters.

Mucking around with Xenophon's preferences would definitely be a bit of a gamble. - I think I'll just make it simple and vote above the line for Pauline.

...40% of posters on this link register support for Pauline Hanson: Hardly a fringe element I would think.

I can't believe anyone, other than a few racist, mindless, 'deliverance country' folk, would give Pauline Hanson even a second glance.

She had her chance, and no one outside the redneck areas of Queensland (a bit like Katter really) gave her the time of day.

Get over it people...

The Guardian has this Senate visualisation today:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/03/senate-race-preference-allocation-every-party

...What Suseonline, your ideal Democracy gives a candidate but one chance; is that right? And you call Pauline Hanson supporters "Red Knecks"! I laugh!

" The catch is: what system will take its place."

That's easy, do away with the Senate.

It's not a house of review at all, when there is majority in both houses, it's a rubber stamp, when it's not, it's a dogs breakfast.

The ultimate house of review are the people, if they don't like what's happening, they can kick 'em out.

" 'deliverance country' folk, would give Pauline Hanson even a second glance."

Hey, I live rurally and am learning the banjo and want to learn that tune but will be voting for the Sex Party ! I have Ms Hanson at 85 on my pre-filled paper, ready to print out and take with me.

That aside, hopefully they are pullin' (y)our legs, if not it does go part way to supporting an IQ test for voter eligibility.